aChristian;
You seem to value an open mind, but I have to point out that having an open mind ceases to be useful when your brain falls out! (this is meant to be a friendly joke not ad hominem). My monitor casing is 40cm high (I am absolutely serious, and am not making this up for the sake of arguement; it's an Acer 99sl (19" screen haha!) if you want to check). Yet more evidence that there is a god, no doubt... I’ll address your thing with numbers more specifically below
Your selectivity in addressing points seems to continue. First of all, you only answer my claim that there would be no major time difference (and I was assuming you wanted everyone who wanted to carry on the debate to correspond personally, which would obviously be more time consuming) between personal correspondence and replying to issues on the board.
You do not address my point regarding what a Christian’s course of action should be (tough, I know, but it’s your decision to identify yourself as one and thus with an expected set of standards).
You do not address the fact that you are not alone amongst religious people in thinking they are right, and that these separate beliefs, all claiming to be right to one extent or the other, are not often held to be mutually compatible.
You do not answer as to your personal status at the time you recovered your belief, or as to whether in the period you had belief you were passive, or active in learning about scientific explanations for existence.
When I make a point about you making an erroneous argument (comparing the evidence for the OJ Simpson trial or against the Earth being flat to the evidence for god), you do not address that point at all. You rather accuse me of being closed minded because of saying “There is no proof…” (contextually a statement of my current opinion based on what I know, and therefore obviously qualified as such) instead of “I am not now aware of the existence of any proof of god that equates…”.
Not including clear expressions of the context an opinion is stated in is not an indication of a closed mind; it is a common feature of conversation, which everyone does;
“Golly, isn’t it cold today.”
vs.
“Golly, in my subjective experience based upon my state of attire and perception of ambient temperature, factoring in wind chill and climactic expectations for this time of year and geographical location, I am of the opinion that it is cold today.”
Saying, “I think” all the time is no more an indication of an open mind than the colour of someone’s underwear.
Why is it so hard to answer simple questions? If you are right, show us, don’t avoid answering questions about your beliefs.
You are, to me, watering down your statement that people will not find evidence for the existence of god if they are “not really willing to serve God" to “All I said was that there is very seldom enough evidence to convince someone of something they strongly wish not to believe”.
You ignore the judgementalism implicit in your earlier, less guarded statements, (as they say that it is the person’s fault for not believing, not the creators for not providing proof, and that is a judgement). You also ignore (as pointed out above) the fact that the examples you gave were BAD examples which undermined the validity of your argument.
And you carry on showing that your statement is, indeed, judgemental;
“I also said that I do not believe God will ever present us with so much evidence of His existence that even those who do not want to believe in Him would now be forced to do so.”
I am glad that you think “…all who are really willing to believe in God will eventually find enough evidence to put their faith in Him”, and “I believe many who now appear to be unwilling to believe in God may actually be very willing to believe in Him”. But that does not remove the fact you think the mind of the person is more important in determining their belief in god than the facts, which we are obviously going to have to differ on, as I think you are making the tail wag the dog on that one. I am human therefore it is my fault?
You then go to an article presented as part of your compelling evidence; thank you for posting this.
The facts as presented regarding coincidences of dimension or size ratios do not appear at fault. Please remember, any calculation of the liklihood of the sun/moon size/distance ratio being exact matches is based on the presumption that it is unusual, as it's the only example we have at the moment to go on, and seems remarkable (and probably is, but it's an assumption without more data, and telescopes won't be that good for a while yet). There is a number sequence in the distance of the planets from the sun, for example (can't remember it's name) that correctly places the planets, including one where the Asteroid Belt is.
For all we know, two-unit systems (the Earth and the Moon really orbit the Sun as a two-unit system, not as a planet with a satellite, as the Moon is a very large satellite compared to the others we have to compare it to) might be a common feature of inner, largely rock solar satellites...
But it's not the facts that bug me, it's the presumptions;
First point; it is based on the presumption that the Bible is the word of god, and that this is proved by perceived numerical indications woven into the Universe. You have not yet proved WHY the Bible stands out from other Holy Books. As pointed out, every faith tends to hold their Holy Books as inspired to one extent or the other. They (the books) don’t all agree, so some, probably most are wrong, and if that is the case, why is the Bible the right one, especially in light of the fact other faiths play number games too?
You cannot say, “Hey, look at the number coincidences, it’s god’s word” unless you can prove all other Holy Books with number coincidences that do not agree with the Bible are false.
Second point; why the obscureness? Please include scriptures in making this argument. Why is god making it so complicated?
Please avoid cautious scriptures like ‘Let the man who has discernment’, or scriptures that make out accurate knowledge is by its nature elitist. If someone was writing a false Holy Book, then sentences like those, and self-fulfilling sentences like “When you say the world’s going to end, they will laugh and say it’s always been this way” are no indication of inspiration. Any half decent forger (or delusional writer) of Holy Books would make sure they could fudge anything that could be used to disprove the inspired nature of their work, like hard facts and clear statements.
I have yet to see any scripture or argument that supports the lack of closure possible from scriptural interpretation. It seems contrary to any claim to a caring god, if the caring god is playing hide the sausage with the real truth. The numerical coincidences could have been clearly stated. They are not, they are inferred and interpretive; like my monitor’s height, they may have nothing to do with anything other than the fact you can take any number from a book and find places where you find that number outside of the book. Why are not clearly stated, like;
“For look, the Sun is great and the Moon is small, but in the heavens they are matched in size, as a sign, for the Sun is great, but far away, and thus appears the same size as the Moon. Indeed, the Moon although small can blot out the Sun when it passes between the Earth and the Sun, but only for a short while.”
Now THAT would be a truly impressive scripture! But instead you have the creator of the Universe playing what amount to silly games with hidden messages requiring secret decoder rings to understand.
WHY? And remember the scriptures.
Oh, 4,005 years between Christ and Adam… based on Biblical year counts including inflated ages of pre-flood patriarchs? So did they live that long? Or does the Bible lie about their ages to make the numbers fit? Where does it say in the Bible that it is lying about their ages to make the numbers fit? How do you know when to take it literally and when to take it figuratively?
aChristian, I do appreciate you taking the time to defend your viewpoint, and don’t expect an immediate reply as I accept you are pushed for time, but hope I will get one eventually.
You have an interesting argument, but not a convincing one unless you can come up with a very good rebuttal of the problems I have raised.
Please don’t mistake my direct style for aggression or anything like that. I love discussions like this, and expect no quarter or give none, but all it is is a discussion. I am attacking points, not you (bar a well-meant jape or two at your expense, or to highlight what I believe are faults in your argument in an illustrative manner; you are more than free to return these in kind as it’s all part of the fun).
Whether it was god, or billions of years of evolution that gave us these brains, it is a shame to waste them!
People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...
